FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION DIGITAL TRANSPARENCY TASK FORCE 2021

INTRODUCTION FROM THE CHAIR

In the fall of 2019, the California Fair Political Practices Commission authorized the creation of a task force to examine issues surrounding the ever-growing and ever-changing nature and practice of digital political advertising. Abundant documentation shows what was once a novelty is now not only a widespread and common practice, but a continually growing norm of political communication. The rise in this practice of digital political discourse raises questions regarding the adequacy of the current transparency of the sources of these communications.

A common and constant refrain from many in the political world is the law generally does not keep up with reality in the realm of political practices. The creation of the FPPC’s Digital Transparency Task Force (“DTTF”) was designed to bridge that gap – to gather information and bring together ideas to help create and modify regulations and laws to align them with the reality of the breadth and sophistication of digital political advertising.

In compiling the makeup of the DTTF, the Commission was mindful of the scope of voices involved and the need for all to be heard. Thus, the DTTF specifically sought and embraced a wide variety of viewpoints. Members include representation from the digital platforms themselves, political scientists and academics who study the phenomenon and its effects on our political landscape, the very political practitioners currently using digital technology in their advertising and outreach, as well as groups devoted to transparency and general ‘good government’ practices. Along with the varied makeup of the DTTF itself, the subsequent public meetings included an even wider variety of voices, providing information, answering questions, offering examples of regulation and practices in a variety of other state and local jurisdictions, as well as providing advice and potential solutions to vexing questions posed by the DTTF.

The following report provides not only the ideas recommended by the DTTF but also the rationale and justification for the proposals. The DTTF worked diligently to find ideas and solutions that not only provide more transparency for the public and accountability of the political practitioners, but to also avoid additional barriers or overly burdensome requirements on those facing any new laws or regulations.

The global pandemic delayed but did not stop the DTTF from completing its task. On behalf of the Commission, I want to thank all members of the DTTF for their time, effort and engagement in formulating these recommendations, as well as the persons and groups who provided testimony and information to the DTTF. The Commission would also like to thank the numerous FPPC staff who helped guide and support the DTTF in its work.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 2 | Page

The DTTF respectfully submits this report for consideration by the Commission, and ultimately, the Legislature and the Governor, with the belief that the recommendations contained herein should be implemented to improve transparency in digital political advertising.

Richard C. Miadich

Chair, California Fair Political Practices Commission

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 3 | Page

COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP

Richard C. Miadich, Chair, Fair Political Practices Commission

Brian Brokaw, Principal, Brian Brokaw Consulting LLC

Rena Davis, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Google

Thad Kousser, Department Chair, Professor of Political Science, UC San Diego

Amber Maltbie, Partner, Nossaman LLP

Jennifer Waggoner, Volunteer, League of Women Voters of California, voting member

Abby Wood, Professor of Law, Political Science and Public Policy, University of Southern California, Commissioner, Fair Political Practices Commission

Katie Zoglin, Volunteer, League of Women Voters of California, non-voting member

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 4 | Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Allison Hayward, FPPC Commissioner, Task Force Member until August 2020 James Schwab, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Task Force Member until January 2021 Gale Kaufman, President, Kaufman Campaign Consultants, Task Force Member until April 2021

Speakers - Russell Lehman, Commissioner, Washington Public Disclosure Commission Fred Jarrett, Commissioner Washington Public Disclosure Commission Sean Flynn, General Counsel, Washington Public Disclosure Commission Kim Bradford, Communications, Washington Public Disclosure Commission Brendan Fischer, Campaign Legal Center Tyler Joseph, Director of Policy, City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission Timothy Grant, IT Director, City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission Matthew Sollars, Director of Public Relations, New York City Campaign Finance Board Libby Hall, Vice President of Client Services, Unearth Campaigns Mona Pasquil Rogers, California Public Policy, Facebook Cristina Flores, U.S. Politics & Government Outreach, Facebook Sarah Schiff, Product Manager, Facebook Trent Lange, President, California Clean Money Campaign Alea Mitchell, Associate Product Counsel, Google Angelika Dorvel, Manager, Government Affairs & Public Policy, Google Ronald M. Jacobs, Chair, Political Law Practice, Venable LLP Michael A. Signorelli, Partner, Venable LLP Jared DeMarinis, Director, Candidacy & Campaign Finance Division, Maryland State Board of Elections Whitney Quesenbery, Executive Director, Center for Civic Design

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 5 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Staff - Galena West, Executive Director Erika Boyd, Senior Commission Counsel Sasha Linker, Commission Assistant Jay Wierenga, Communications Director Lindsey Nakano, Legislative Counsel Katelyn Greene, Commission Counsel Loressa Hon, Chief of Administration Larry Crabtree, Chief Information Officer Jesse Hidalgo, Information Technology Specialist Sukhi Brar, Assistant General Counsel Christopher Burton, Assistant Chief of Enforcement Megan Van Arsdale, Commission Counsel Paul Rasey, Special Investigator

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 6 | Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION FROM THE CHAIR ...... 2 COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP ...... 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS...... 7 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 9 2. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 15 Recommendation 1. Creation of a state-run archive for digital political advertisements...... 15 Recommendation 2. Contents of the Archive...... 16 Recommendation 3. Request Digital Disclosure Research ...... 20 3. WORK OF THE DTTF ...... 22 Presentations made to the DTTF...... 22 Fair Political Practices Commission Staff ...... 22 Washington State Public Disclosure Commission ...... 22 Campaign Legal Center ...... 23 City of Los Angeles ...... 23 James Schwab presentation on SB 1104 ...... 24 New York City Ad Archive ...... 24 Unearth Campaigns ...... 25 Google ...... 25 Facebook ...... 26 California Clean Money Campaign ...... 26 Venable LLP ...... 27 Maryland State Board of Elections ...... 28 Center for Civic Design ...... 28

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 7 | Page

APPENDICES ...... 29 A. Fiscal Analysis ...... 29 B. Minutes of the Meetings of the Digital Transparency Task Force ...... 31 April 23, 2020 ...... 31 May 29, 2020 ...... 35 December 8, 2020 ...... 40 January 22, 2021 ...... 45 February 19, 2021 ...... 50 March 19, 2021 ...... 58 April 16, 2021 ...... 62 May 21, 2021 ...... 70 June 18, 2021 ...... 73 July 15, 2021 ...... 78 B. Written Comments Submitted by Public ...... 80 Alexandra Starr (April 23, 2020) ...... 80 Digital Comments from April 23, 2020 Meeting ...... 81 Daniel Newman and Ann Ravel, MapLight (May 29, 2020) ...... 83 Brendan Fischer and Austin Graham, Campaign Legal Center (May 29, 2020) ...... 86 Ian Vandewalker, Brennan Center for Justice (May 29, 2020) ...... 92 Digital Comment from May 29, 2020 Meeting ...... 99 Cynara Velazquez, Alliance for Community Engagement (January 22, 2021) ...... 100 Brendan Fischer and Austin Graham, Campaign Legal Center (February 19, 2021) ...... 102 Brendan Fischer and Austin Graham, Camapign Legal Center (May 21, 2021) ...... 115 Trent Lange, California Clean Money Campaign (June 18, 2021) ...... 120

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 8 | Page

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Over 47 years ago, the people of California voted overwhelmingly to approve and adopt the Political Reform Act of 1974 (the “Political Reform Act” or the “Act”). A central purpose of the Act is to provide timely and accurate disclosure of campaign activity, such as contributions and expenditures. This mandate extends to oversight of political advertising, both in terms of reporting of spending on campaign advertisements, as well as on-ad disclosure (generally known as “disclaimers”) of the persons behind the individual advertisements. In these ways, the Act seeks to protect the integrity of our electoral process by ensuring that voters know who is responsible for the political advertisements that seek to influence how they cast their ballot.

The Act created the Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”) to administer, enforce, and interpret the Act, and to educate the public about the Act’s goals and requirements. One of the ways the FPPC discharges these responsibilities is by making sure the Act’s requirements keep pace with the evolving ways that campaigns seek to influence voters. The FPPC thus established the Digital Transparency Task Force (“DTTF”) to study how the Act’s requirements may be improved to provide greater transparency in the evolving area of digital campaign activity, including through online social media platforms.

Changing Landscape

A) Changing technology and advancements in outreach It is not an understatement to say technology is changing at breakneck speed. And this ever- advancing technology is being utilized at an increasing rate by those targeting the public. Corporations, for example, use it for market research, to better know and understand the mind, habits, desires, and spending habits of their consumers. They market their products and services accordingly. Much of the same technology used to glean such information is then used to target those specific micro-audiences, with subtle changes added to accommodate each. This dissection of the consumer that used to take months or years can now take hours, minutes, or in some instances, even micro-seconds.

The corporate world is not alone. Virtually every entity, organization and sector are involved. Thus, it is no surprise these techniques and technologies are also being employed at an ever- increasing speed and rate in the world of political campaigns and political advertising.

B) Changing political advertising practices resulting from new technology

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 9 | Page

FPPC Staff provided an overview in the very first DTTF meeting of the changing technology and the ever-growing use of digital media, as well as trends in the increasing amount of money being spent.

The very meeting itself was an example of new technology being employed. As COVID-19 began its insidious spread, the pandemic forced the postponement of the first meeting planned for March, 2019. California, followed by much of the rest of the United States and the world, was forced into lockdown for this once-in-a-generation pandemic. Instead of holding an in-person meeting with the many task force members in attendance in the Commission’s meeting room, the Task Force joined millions of others by moving its meeting to an online, digital platform. And thus, the very first meeting of the DTTF in April, 2020 was via Zoom.

C) Changing amounts of spending on digital, political advertising Numerous reviews, analyses and follow-ups of the 2020 elections provided the DTTF with further information to bolster the evidence of the growing use and importance of digital political advertising. As expected, it showed the amount of money spent continues to grow exponentially, as this portion of a Forbes Magazine story on the phenomena points out:

“In a familiar story for most in the advertising world, digital political advertising spending exploded in 2020. In the 2015-2016 election cycle, digital media accounted for roughly 2-3% of political ad spending. That jumped to 18% in this one. The roughly $700-800 million in digital ad spend in the 2017-2018 election cycle became $1.6 billion in this one.” (Forbes, Dec. 8, 2020, Howard Homanoff, AdImpact, 2020 Political Cycle Review)

Questions

The FPPC Digital Transparency Task Force was thus equipped with the scope and size of the issue. It then turned its attention to asking the basic questions posed by the subject. These questions included but were not limited to:

1. What are ‘digital’ advertisements and what are their variations? In essence, what are they and what do they look like? Under Recommendation 2, section 2b., the Task Force recommends that digital advertisements be broadly understood to include, but not be limited to, advertisements disseminated over internet platforms such as Facebook and Google, online paid influencer content, and any other type of paid political speech disseminated over the internet or through digital means which meets the definition of “advertisement” as defined in Government Code Section 84501.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 10 | Page

2. What are current laws and regulations, and what are the gaps caused by new technology and practices? Under existing State law, disclaimers on digital political advertisements are generally modeled after disclaimers that have historically appeared on advertisements appearing in print or on television. In Recommendation 3: Request Digital Disclosure Research, the Task Force addresses current law and any future gaps caused by new technology and practices by recommending the Legislature commission a study to examine whether different styles of on-advertisement disclaimers could be more effective in providing voters information about who is paying for digital campaign advertisements.

3. How do we currently regulate political advertisements, what unique challenges do regulators face in regulating digital political advertisements, and what possible solutions exist to address those challenges? Both the FPPC Legal and Enforcement Divisions provided information on the Disclose Act, passed by the Legislature in 2017, and other laws pertaining to political advertising disclosure to explain current regulation in this area. Recommendation 1: Creation of a State-Run Political Advertisement Archive discusses how digital campaign advertisements present unique challenges to regulators, such as the FPPC, who are charged with ensuring that voters receive timely and accurate information concerning who is responsible for the content of the advertisement and the payments associated with producing/distributing the advertisement. The creation of a state-run archive would assist in the facilitation of campaign finance enforcement and would allow for more legal oversight of digital political ads by the FPPC.

4. What are the existing on-advertisement disclaimer requirements for digital political advertisements, and are there new or more effective ways to inform voters about who is responsible for the digital political advertisements they receive? Under existing State law, disclaimers on digital political advertisements are generally modeled after disclaimers that have historically appeared on advertisements appearing in print or on television. In Recommendation 3: Request Digital Disclosure Research, the Task Force attempts to addresses current law and any future gaps caused by new technology and practices by recommending the Legislature commission a study to examine whether different styles of on-advertisement disclaimers, including the use of iconography or click-through content, could be more effective in providing voters information about who is paying for digital campaign advertisements.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 11 | Page

Besides having numerous experts on the DTTF itself, during the course of its mission, the DTTF sought out experts and practitioners in the various fields to gain insight from the pertinent and various perspectives.

Looking at the basic questions, the DTTF heard from campaign practitioners who provided information and examples of the various digital ads. Predominant types of digital usage come in the form of video, with the end-user experience increasingly seen on cellphones and computers via the internet. At the December, 2020 DTTF meeting, Unearth campaigns, self-described as a public affairs technology company where “machine intelligence meets human intelligence,” offered a broad range of examples of current digital political advertising and what is working well for ease of disclosure requirements for firms and disclosure recognition by the public. The presentation outlined some observations on where there may be gaps and what may not be working in current regulatory practice.

To look at current law, the DTTF heard from both FPPC Staff regarding California statutes and regulations as well as presentations from a variety of other states, which included relevant current law of those states. This included presentations by boards and commissions from the states of Maryland and Washington, and information on the Democracy Protection Act in New York. For California, both the FPPC Legal and Enforcement Divisions provided information on the Disclose Act, passed by the Legislature in 2017, which is the most relevant statute on political advertising disclosure.

These experts from around the country, as well as FPPC Legal Division staff, then looked at some of the gaps where technology is, or may be, outpacing the law and regulations. The previously mentioned Unearth presentation reported on gaps in videos, specifically vertical videos and GIF technology, and person-to-person texting.

From the first meeting on, FPPC Enforcement Division addressed the questions regarding enforcing current laws and regulations, the challenges facing them in both investigating potential violations (such as, new types of advertising not specifically addressed in current law) as well as prosecuting cases (including ‘over-disclosure’).

At the December, 2020 meeting, staff from the FPPC Legal Division outlined a few of the gaps in current law, some of which overlapped the concerns made by others. One of the potential improvements recommended by FPPC Enforcement, and echoed by many others through the course of the meetings (April, 2020 DTTF meeting, LA City presentation/December, 2020 DTTF meeting, NYC presentation), was improved recordkeeping and the creation of a repository for digital ads.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 12 | Page

Gathering More Information

A. Task Force Heard from the Platforms Fundamental to understanding what changes and challenges involving digital political advertising are needed is understanding what the current policies and practices are of the platforms themselves. Besides having a representative of Google as a member, the DTTF heard from two of the largest platforms in the world, with representatives from Google and Facebook presenting their current procedures. Both the Google and Facebook presentations laid out their standards and practices, looked at issues such as targeting and targeting restrictions, and the information available on their platforms regarding transparency (who used their platforms for political advertising, how much was spent, and other information available). These presentations were vital to the mission of the DTTF to see what is currently available to the public from private companies currently holding that information. Currently, the private sector providers control the information the public has access to and can change or remove that information at their discretion.

B. Task Force Heard from Other Local and State Jurisdictions Regarding Their Progress Presentations made by the State of Washington Public Disclosure Commission (April, 2020), Maryland State Board of Elections (February, 2021), New York City (December, 2020) and the City of Los Angeles (April, 2020) to the DTTF showed what other public entities have done in this space. Many of the jurisdictions heard from have created their own advertisement archives. The DTTF heard information on the scope of what was to be included and why, how much cost to create and maintain a public database of digital advertisements, and how long those items should be maintained.

C. DTTF Heard Cost Estimates from FPPC Staff

FPPC Staff listened to the presentations, worked with the jurisdictions who have implemented their own advertisement archive, and completed an analysis of estimated costs to implement a California State Ad Archive. The costs ranged from a start-up cost of approximately $311,000 - about $337,000, with on-going costs estimated at approximately $155,000 - $188,000 per year. These costs would vary depending on whether the system would interface with the Secretary of State’s new CAL-ACCESS Replacement System. These costs also assume manual uploading by committees and possible interfacing with platforms such as Facebook and Google. See Appendix A for the full breakdown of estimated costs.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 13 | Page

Conclusions

The fundamental conclusions reached by the Task Force include the following:

• Digital political advertising is not only here to stay - it is likely to be an ever-expanding phenomenon, rivaling and potentially surpassing traditional advertising (television, radio, print). • Currently, there is no way for most California voters to access copies, or the content, of that advertising, nor is there a way for them to be able to see who is ‘behind’ the advertising or the amount of money spent. • Current databases operated by private platforms are subject to the private sector’s commitments to Congress and applicable state law where it exists. Outside of that, the public sector has discretion as to what the database contains and displays and whether each archive will continue to exist in the future.

These fundamental conclusions form the basis for proposed action. To address these findings, the FPPC’s Digital Transparency Task Force makes several recommendations as outlined in the next section.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 14 | Page

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION 1. CREATION OF A STATE-RUN ARCHIVE FOR DIGITAL POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS.

Political campaigns are increasingly using digital media (websites, social media, etc.) as a means of delivering campaign advertisements to voters. Digital campaign advertisements present unique challenges to regulators, such as the Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”), who are charged with ensuring that voters receive timely and accurate information concerning who is responsible for the content of the advertisement and the payments associated with producing/distributing the advertisement.

Some jurisdictions, including the cities of Los Angeles and New York, have created government- run campaign advertisement archives where members of the public, academics, and the news media can access copies of digital campaign advertisements and quickly locate information about the persons/groups responsible for the advertisements as well as the spending associated with the advertisement. California has not established a similar archive at the state- level.

While various online platforms retain and make publicly available certain information about political advertisements run on their respective platforms, testimony presented to the DTTF indicates that there are large discrepancies in both how platforms define “advertisements,” as well as what type of information is disclosed. Additionally, a federal appellate court recently struck down portions of a Maryland law that, similar to California, required online platforms to maintain information about campaign advertisements on their platform.

In the interests of transparency and providing relevant information to the electorate, it is therefore the recommendation of the DTTF that the State of California create a state-run archive to collect and make publicly available copies of specified digital political advertisements.

A state-run archive will also assist in the facilitation of campaign finance enforcement. The centralization of digital ad information in a government-hosted archive would allow for more legal oversight of digital political ads by the FPPC, while also facilitating public review of political advertisements by enabling journalists, watchdog groups, and other members of the public to review ads, understand who is trying to influence them, and alert the FPPC to possible wrongdoing.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 15 | Page

The DTTF heard from a multitude of speakers who support the creation of the Archive or are working toward an Archive in their own jurisdiction. Most agree that platform-run archives are inconsistent in the type of information disclosed and lack enforcement capabilities. Specifically, the Campaign Legal Center presented the difference between the Facebook, Google, and Snapchat advertisement archives and how each platform disclosed different information. The State of Maryland has been one of the first to mandate that the platforms keep an archive and while they have seen a positive impact on voters and transparency, it’s important to note that both Facebook and Google do not host political ads in that state because their systems are incompatible with the law’s requirements.

RECOMMENDATION 2. CONTENTS OF THE ARCHIVE.

1. The DTTF recommends that the Archive contain the following information: a. A copy of the advertisement. Copies of any digital advertisements that meet the definition of “advertisement” in Government Code Section 84501 must be submitted to the Archive.

b. The committee that paid for the advertisement. i. If the committee is a candidate-controlled committee, this information shall include the name of the candidate, the name of the committee, and the treasurer of the committee. ii. If the committee is a non-candidate-controlled committee that qualifies as a committee pursuant to Government Code Section 82013(a), this information shall include the name of the sponsor(s) if any, the name of the committee, the names of the committee’s top three contributors at the time of the advertisement, and the treasurer of the committee. iii. If the committee qualifies as a committee pursuant to Government Code Section 82013(b) or (c), this information shall include the name, address, and phone number of the filer (name used shall be that by which the filer is identified for other legal purposes or any name by which the filer is commonly known to the public) and the name and phone number of responsible officer if the filer is not an individual.

c. What platform(s) or entity the committee paid for the advertisement to appear, when the advertisement ran, and for how long.

d. The amount paid to the platform to disseminate the advertisement.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 16 | Page

e. The number of people to whom the advertisement was disseminated directly, or expected to be disseminated, by the platform.

f. Identification of each candidate (including their name and the public office sought or held) or ballot measure referenced by the advertisement, and the support or oppose position.

g. The intended audience. This information shall include the inputs supplied by the committee to a platform or entity for distribution of each advertisement, including age, gender, geographic location, and any other targeting criteria selected and paid for by the committee. In recommending that the Archive contain information pertaining to the intended audience of each advertisement, the DTTF is mindful of the balanced approach necessary to increase transparency while also respecting the privacy and propriety considerations of campaign and political participants. To these ends, the DTTF has recommended the submission of data akin to what would be disclosed on a receipt for services purchased, a majority of which is data already publicly disclosed by platforms themselves. Such information may include, but is not be limited to, the total amount spent, dates the advertisement aired, number of impressions, geographic location, information related to age and gender of the targeted audience, and any other targeting parameters permitted by the platform. Note: Disclosure of an advertisement, who paid for an advertisement, where and when an advertisement ran, and the amount paid for an advertisement are categories used unanimously among the different archives currently in existence. The DTTF heard from New York City, the City of Los Angeles, Facebook, and Google regarding the type of information disclosed in their respective archives. While each archive used a different approach, they all included some form of this disclosure. Where they differ is in the targeting information and how that should be disclosed. Facebook and Google take the approach of disclosing age, gender, and location of ad impressions. Maryland’s requirement does not include targeting information, but the Maryland State Board of Elections has the ability to subpoena this information as needed.

2. The DTTF recommends that the following types of advertisements be included in the Archive: a. State-level candidate and ballot measure advertisements. The DTTF recommends that the Archive currently focus on housing advertisements pertaining to state- level candidates and ballot measures. This would include Assembly, Senate,

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 17 | Page

Board of Equalization, CalPERS/CalSTRS, and Constitutional Officer races in addition to statewide ballot measures.

b. Digital advertisements. The DTTF recommends that for its initial launch the Archive focus on the housing of digital advertisements. This includes, but is not limited to, advertisements disseminated over internet platforms such as Facebook and Google, paid influencer content, and any other type of paid speech disseminated over the internet or through digital means which meets the definition of “advertisement” as defined in Government Code Section 84501.

The DTTF further recommends that the Archive be built in such a way as to allow for expansion in the future to encapsulate local-level candidate and ballot measure advertisements, issue advertisements, and non-digital advertisements. While there is inherent value from a transparency and efficiency standpoint of housing all such data in a single database; the DTTF is mindful of feasibility implications and believes that an Archive focusing on state-level candidate and ballot measure advertisements will be of most use to voters at the current time.

Note: In 2014, Senator Padilla introduced Senate Bill 1104, which would have required the Secretary of State to maintain electronic records of all campaign communications, including advertisements, mass mailings, and slate mailers, supporting or opposing a candidate for elective state office or a statewide ballot measure. While SB 1104 did not advance, this recommendation takes a similar approach by including state-level communications.

3. The DTTF recommends that committees paying for digital advertisements have the obligation of submitting copies and inputs regarding such advertisements to the State Archive. This structurally flows from obligations currently on committees to maintain records and report activity as designated by the Political Reform Act.

Committees may wish to contract with platforms to have the relevant information transmitted directly to the Archive, if feasible. The ultimate legal obligation for providing the required information, however, should rest with the committee paying for the advertisements.

Note: The City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission places the filing requirement on the committee. Maryland House Bill 981 placed the reporting obligation on the platforms, which resulted in some platforms not allowing advertisements within the state.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 18 | Page

4. The DTTF recommends that the following be taken into consideration for design of the Archive: a. Accessibility across levels of inquiry. The Archive should be easily navigable by voters, allowing them to search for information most relevant to them, while also supplying a heightened level of information for those interested in conducting research or further analysis. To these ends, the Archive should be designed with multiple types of users in mind.

b. Searchability. A user should be able to search the Archive through as many parameters as possible, including, but not limited to: committee payor name, date(s) the advertisement(s) run, candidate/ballot measure at issue, platform(s) used, keyword searches, and content searches. To the extent possible, the Archive should provide an open API, as well as the ability to download raw data through multiple formats.

c. Community review. The DTTF strongly recommends that throughout the design process a diverse set of stakeholder groups are consulted in order to offer suggestions and garner feedback as to accessibility, ease of use, and desired searchability functions. Note: The Center for Civic Design quickly found that the “bite, snack, meal” model provides the most accessible information for readers, as it gives the right amount of information for everyone seeking it. This model directly relates to the amount of information an individual receives. A “bite” contains the shortest possible information and is the first information received. The individual then can choose to move on to a “snack,” which is a summary of the information, or a “meal,” which contains the full detail or instruction. The Center believes that receiving a small amount of information leads to curiosity and further research. The idea of progressive disclosure removes information overload, which usually causes a reader to feel underprepared or disengaged. Venable LLP’s use of political ad icons uses the same small information first model, and they have come to the same conclusion that a user’s ability to control information leads to greater understanding and transparency.

5. The DTTF recommends that the following be taken into account in the creation and maintenance of the Archive:

a. Training and customer service. The Archive should contain online training tools, both for entities submitting digital advertisements, as well as for individuals or organizations seeking to research the available data. To the extent possible,

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 19 | Page

customer service assistance should be made available via online support.

b. Timeline for maintenance of records. The DTTF recommends that the records housed by the Archive be maintained as long as technologically and financially feasible, but in no case less than 12 years from the date of submission.

c. Timeline for submission to the Archive. The DTTF recommends that the required information regarding digital advertisements be submitted to the Archive no later than when the campaign report is due disclosing the attendant expenditure.

However, in the 90 days prior to an election, commonly referred to as the “late reporting period” in which various activity is currently required by the Political Reform Act to be disclosed within 24 hours, the DTTF recommends that required information regarding digital advertisements be submitted to the Archive within 24 hours of going live.

d. Public Records Act requests. The DTTF recommends that records be retained and made available in such a way as to allow a member of the public to download any records which may be subject to a Public Records Act request. The goal of this recommendation is two-fold: to provide fast and expedient access to records for members of the public, while most efficiently using staff and department time and resources.

Note: As discussed during the Center for Civic Design presentation, training and customer service are important pieces to any project. The City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission and the New York City Campaign Finance Board use a similar approach of shortened reporting timelines during the late reporting period.

RECOMMENDATION 3. REQUEST DIGITAL DISCLOSURE RESEARCH

Under existing State law, disclaimers on digital political advertisements are generally modeled after disclaimers that have historically appeared on advertisements appearing in print or on television. Given the continually evolving nature of digital communications, the DTTF has discussed whether there may be better or more efficient ways to provide all voters with information about who is paying for digital campaign advertisements. Some examples discussed include greater use of links taking a user to a webpage with further information, use of uniform icons or insignias, or having simplified requirements applicable across multiple platforms.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 20 | Page

The DTTF, therefore, recommends that the Legislature commission a study with public engagement to examine whether there are different styles of disclaimers that could be required for digital campaign advertisements that would more effectively provide voters with information about who is paying for the digital campaign advertisements. In addition, this review would help committees comply with the laws under the ever-changing environment surrounding technology today. This would be similar to the study completed by the Center for Civic Design in advance of Senate Bill 505 (2015) that ultimately authorized the Secretary of State to revise the Voter Bill of Rights wording as necessary to ensure understanding by the public. To ensure transparency, the research process should include public hearings to identify the scope of the study, discuss the methodology, materials, and questions prior to the start, and disclose the data and draft report prior to finalization. The DTTF believes this is the best way to ensure disclaimers on digital advertisements are designed and implemented in the most efficient way possible, while also taking the feasibility of digital disclaimers into account given the constantly evolving nature of digital communications.

The DTTF heard testimony from public affairs technology company, Unearth Campaigns, that a major gap in online disclosure exists in digital videos, including vertical videos and .GIF videos. Venable LLP discussed their work with political ad icons that provided enhanced transparency and allowed consumers real time abilities to control the amount of information they received. The “Voter Bill of Rights” study by the Center for Civic Design is the framework for the study of disclaimers since their work led to greater understanding, participation, and transparency.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 21 | Page

3. WORK OF THE DTTF

PRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE DTTF

FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION STAFF Fair Political Practices Commission Staff gave multiple presentations regarding digital ads. Jay Wierenga, Communications Director, discussed campaign advertising in the digital realm, giving an overview of the growing significance and presence of digital political advertisements, the differences from traditional political advertising, and the challenges presented. Sukhi Brar, Assistant General Counsel, and Katelyn Greene, Commission Counsel, discussed the current legal landscape for regulating digital political ads. Their presentation covered California law, regulatory laws on the federal level, and included discussion with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission on how Washington State is approaching digital campaign ads. Christopher Burton, Assistant Chief of Enforcement and Paul Rasey, Special Investigator, discussed enforcement challenges presented by digital political advertising, which included investigation and prosecution, and the differences in digital political ads compared with those in traditional media.

WASHINGTON STATE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COMMISSION Russell Lehman, Vice Chair, Washington Public Disclosure Commission, gave an overview of the Commission and discussed the current landscape of digital political advertising in the State of Washington. Sean Flynn, Counsel, Washington Public Disclosure Commission, discussed the current laws in Washington that require disclosure on commercial advertisers. In 2018, the Commission adopted regulations that specifically addressed commercial advertisers in a digital format. The main goal was for the public to be able to see the ‘receipt’ of the advertisements purchased. Washington has found that platforms are not willing to fully comply with the new laws. According to Mr. Flynn, Facebook and Google have adopted policies to not provide political advertising in Washington in reaction to the regulations adopted. Commissioner Fred Jarrett discussed working with Facebook in an effort to bring them into compliance with the goal of Facebook having political ads by the 2021 election cycle.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 22 | Page

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER Brendan Fischer, Campaign Legal Center, presented a discussion of digital archives for political advertisements, including (1) examples of current archives; (2) information and data collected in archives; (3) source of information and data to be collected; (4) public v. private housing of archives; and (5) policy and legal considerations.

In a general manner, on the federal level, political committees report all of their spending, including their spending on digital ads. What they are most concerned about is the spending by non-political committees and dark money groups, and the only federal regulation of their digital activity pertains to ads that expressly advocate for or against candidates. On the federal and state levels, the biggest problem has been that the ads cannot be found since digital ads have often only been viewable by the voters to whom they are targeted, which is in contrast with broadcast ads, which are widely distributed. This causes enforcement issues, as enforcement cannot monitor compliance with reporting and disclosure requirements for ads they cannot locate. Without the ads, a voter also cannot track voter misinformation or misleading information.

Mr. Fischer went over the platforms that are covered. If the state maintains the ad archive, the “online platform” definition is less significant and applies primarily to platform recordkeeping requirements. Qualification thresholds are relevant if platforms maintain the ad archives. Existing legislation uses different threshold for “online platform.” Comprehensive availability of election-related ads in an archive provides more info to the public, aids in enforcement, and helps to prevent digital “dark” ads. Existing legislation is varied in coverage of digital election ads.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES Tyler Joseph, Director of Policy, City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission, and Timothy Grant, IT Director, City of Los Angeles Ethics Commission, spoke to the Digital Transparency Task Force about the Public Data Portal currently in use in the City of Los Angeles. The Public Data Portal search for campaign communications can be used to find electronic copies of campaign communications that are distributed to 200 or more persons by a LAUSD candidate or a city candidate, officeholder, or committee. The filing deadline for LAUSD candidates is at the time of distribution, and the filing deadline for a city candidate, officeholder, or committee is within 24 hours of distribution between the filing week and the general election, or within five business days otherwise.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 23 | Page

JAMES SCHWAB PRESENTATION ON SB 1104 James Schwab, Chief Deputy Secretary of State and Digital Transparency Task Force Member, discussed SB 1104 (2014) including the intentions the California Secretary of State was seeking with the bill. The idea for SB 1104 originated from the system in the City of Los Angeles for collecting and disclosing political advertisements. The bill would have required all campaign communications, including advertisements, mass mailings, and slate mailers supporting or opposing a candidate for elective state office or a statewide ballot measure, to be filed with the Secretary of State’s office. At the time (2014), there had not been an identified source for replacing Cal Access, so the main opposition was the cost of the new system and the bill died in the second fiscal committee. The bill would have required a candidate for state office or slate mailer organization or committee that authorizes an expenditure for a campaign contribution to file an electronic copy of the campaign communication with the date of its distribution to the Secretary of State’s office. It also would have required the Secretary of State to maintain all electronic records of campaign communication, so it would be available digitally on the Secretary of State’s website, and would have required that all the communications and records be maintained for public inspection on the Secretary of State’s website for 5 years.

NEW YORK CITY AD ARCHIVE Matthew Sollars, New York City Campaign Finance Board, presented the NYC Campaign Finance Board Independent Expenditures Portal to the Digital Transparency Task Force. The presentation covered the independent expenditure disclosure and communication archive and showed the search options to find campaign contributions and independent spending for each year. The Campaign Finance Board has run the matching funds program in NYC since 1988. Their regulation requirement is communications-based, as opposed to expenditure-based or spending-based. Communications are required to be disclosed once one thousand dollars or more is spent on any advertisement supporting or opposing any candidate or ballot proposal. The regulation also requires disclosure of, and a paid-for-by notice on, any expenditure of one hundred dollars or more. The voters can search based on target or spender, and Mr. Sollars gave a tour of their website.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 24 | Page

UNEARTH CAMPAIGNS Libby Hall, Vice President of Client Services, Unearth Campaigns, gave an overview of Unearth Campaigns describing the business as a public affairs technology company where machine intelligence meets human intelligence. Ms. Hall discussed the lack of regulation for digital videos (like vertical and .GIF methods), the inconsistent platform enforcement, peer-to-peer texting, and influencer stories.

Ms. Hall recommended moving at campaign speed and allowing for the transparency center to have limitations for after an ad is already in market. Their suggestions include a 24-hour contribution reporting timeline, being publisher agnostic, enabling peer reporting, ensuring credibility through verification, and expanding beyond digital.

GOOGLE Representatives from Google, including Alea Mitchell, presented an overview of their political advertising products and transparency report.

Google Ads is a self-service ad platform used by advertisers of all sizes for an almost limitless range of products and services. Advertisers choose what ads will display, determine a budget, and place bids depending on where and when they want their ads to appear. Advertisers can create multiple ad formats including search, display, and video ads.

Ms. Mitchell went through setting a budget, creating a responsive display ad, previewing the ads, and creating sub-assets.

Google Ads Terms and Policies describe what ads are and are not allowed on their platform. They remove ads that violate their policies and act against bad advertisers. In 2020, they blocked and removed 3.1 billion ads for violating their policies and suspended nearly 1.7 million advertiser accounts using a combination of automated and human review.

Advertisers that wish to run election ads are required to undergo a verification process which verifies their identity and eligibility to run election ads, according to different regional requirements. Following verification, election ads include a “paid for by” disclaimer with the verified advertiser name and appear in a publicly available and searchable Transparency Report. The report generally includes a copy of the ad and various statistics about the ad, including the approximate associated spend, the dates and times it ran, and the targeting used. Election ads are restricted to targeting by age, gender, location, and contextual placement.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 25 | Page

FACEBOOK Sarah Schiff, Product Manager, Facebook, presented on Facebook’s transparency efforts regarding ads, including Facebook’s Ad Library.

Their advertising principles include: building for people first, they do not sell people’s data, people can control the ads that they see, advertising should be safe and civil, should not divide or discriminate, and should empower all businesses.

Their process includes ad creation phase, ad review, ad delivery, and then ad reporting.

There are additional steps for advertisers who want to run ads about social issue elections or politics. The user must confirm their identity and location, specify who is responsible behind the ad, provide additional information that Facebook can validate to ensure accountability, and then the ad enters the ad library where it will be available for 7 years.

In the spirit of the Honest Ads act, which Facebook supports, they take a broader approach in defining what could influence public opinion around elections.

Facebook’s transparency suite includes the ad library, the ad library report, and the ad library API.

CALIFORNIA CLEAN MONEY CAMPAIGN Trent Lange, President, California Clean Money Campaign, presented Identified Formatting Issues with DISCLOSE Act and Discussion on how to Rectify Those Issues.

Mr. Lange went over the California DISCLOSE Act History. The intent of AB 249 was to require that all ballot measures and independent expenditures show in the bottom one third of the screen for five seconds the name of the committee at the top underlines to try to separate it from the top three funders each on separate lines, so people could easily see them.

In the 2018 DISCLOSE Act Clean Up Bill, some loopholes were closed, and the current problem identified includes long committee names that make it hard to read the top three funders in five seconds. The proposed DISCLOSE Clarity Solution is to require top contributors to be yellow and separated by half line from committee name and bar use of terms such as “incorporated,” “committee”, “political action committee”, or “corporation”, or abbreviations of these terms, unless the term is part of the contributor’s name in common usage or parlance (instead of having them optional as in AB 249).

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 26 | Page

Proposed DISCLOSE Clarity Act solutions for online videos add the same requirement for top contributors to be separated by a half line and yellow font, and allow committee names to be shortened or replaced with FPPC Committee ID number.

The proposed DISCLOSE Clarity Act solution for small graphic ads require “who funded this ad” to be underlined and appear either in a white box with blue letters or a black box with white letters.

VENABLE LLP Ronald M. Jacobs, Chair, Political Law Practice, Venable LLP & Michael A. Signorelli, Partner, Venable LLP, presented the Digital Advertising Alliance’s (DAA) Political Ads Program designed to increase transparency and accountability around digital express advocacy political ads, including use of a Political Ad icon.

The DAA establishes and enforces responsible privacy practices across the industry for relevant digital advertising, provides consumers with enhanced transparency and control through multifaceted principles that apply to multi-site data and cross-app gathered in either desktop, mobile web, or mobile app environments. The DAA is an independent non-profit organization led by leading advertising and marketing trade associations.

Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Signorelli went over the regulatory issues such as who should maintain the information, where does the information sought reside, how different networks place different ads so aggregate information may not be known, and situations where the publisher/owner of the site may have no idea about the ads shown, and information is not always passed through.

They described the pop-up contents in detail and showed some examples of them in practice.

They gave an overview of how consumers are provided with enhanced transparency through relevant digital advertising, the consumers real time abilities to control their information, how the ad disclosure works, and the flexibility of the icons.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 27 | Page

MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS Jared DeMarinis, Director, Candidacy & Campaign Finance Division, Maryland State Board of Elections discussed Maryland’s use of icons for specified disclaimer information and the state’s political ad database. Mr. DeMarinis stated that Maryland has always tried to understand how to change the system while still maintaining disclosure.

Mr. DeMarinis played a YouTube video from the Maryland State Board of Elections titled Transparency, Accountability, and Political Ads. He further described the video he played, and discussed the positive impact of labeling political ads and the creation of databases for the ads for voters to make the best decisions.

CENTER FOR CIVIC DESIGN Whitney Quesenbery, Executive Director, Center for Civic Design, gave a presentation on how the Center for Civic Design works to give voters more accessible information. Ms. Quesenbery stated that the Center for Civic Design mostly looks at election materials but also at how people interact with those materials and the government. The Center for Civic Design had found that voting is not a local interaction, as voters in Baltimore were influenced by decisions made in California. A major issue the Center encountered was the civic literacy gaps in the public and how people draw inferences or multifaceted information from print. The Center for Civic Design learned that policy making is dominated by those who gather information from text and that progressive disclosure should be utilized to prevent information overload or make them feel underprepared and disengaged.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 28 | Page

APPENDICES

A. FISCAL ANALYSIS

1. Development Cost. The purpose of this analysis is to provide the Task Force with the assumptions staff used to develop the cost estimate for the State of California to create a state- run archive to collect and make publicly available copies of specified digital political advertisements.

The following assumptions are included in the cost estimate of the Archive: 1. State-level candidates and ballot measure advertisements, which includes Assembly, Senate, CalPERS/CalSTRS, and Constitutional Officer races in addition to statewide ballot measures.

2. Digital advertisements disseminated over internet platforms such as Facebook and Google, paid influencer content, and any other type of paid speech disseminated over the internet.

3. The Archive would be designed to provide an open Application Programming Interface (API), which allows interfacing with third party platforms to receive advertisement data and transmit it to the FPPC on behalf of the committee.

Software and Hardware Cost Service type Description Monthly Upfront cost cost Azure SQL Database Single Database, vCore, RA-GRS Backup Storage, Business Critical, Provisioned, Gen 5, 1 8 vCore instance(s), 1 year reserved, 1,000 GB Storage, 2000 GB Backup Storage Virtual Machines 1 D4d v4 (4 vCPUs, 16 GB RAM); Windows – (OS Only); 1 year reserved; 0 managed disks – S4, 100 transaction units; Inter Region transfer type, 5 GB outbound data transfer from West US to East Asia Virtual Machines 1 D3 (4 vCPUs, 14 GB RAM); Windows – (OS Only); 1 year reserved; 0 managed disks – S4, 100 transaction units; Inter Region transfer type, 5 GB outbound data transfer from West US to East Asia

API Management Developer tier, 1 units(s), 730 Hours

Support Licensing Program Total (Based on a yearly annual contract rate) $ 4,658 $ 3,212

Option A = Assume no API with CARS Option B = Assume API with CARS on State-level candidate and ballot measure

State Staff Implementation Cost and Timeline

Option A = 12 months of Implementation Option B = 12 Months of Implementation 12 12 Months Ongoing Months Ongoing Startup Annual Startup Annual Cost Cost Cost Cost

1 YR Limited Term Project 1YR Limited Term Project Lead for Development $145,500 Lead for Development $145,500 1PY Develop & 1.25 PY Develop & Maintenance on Application Maintenance on (DBA) $106,000 $ 99,000 Application (DBA) $132,500 $132,500

PY Cost $251,500 $ 99,000 PY Cost $278,000 $132,500 Software and Hardware Software and Hardware Cost $ 59,108 $ 55,896 Cost $ 59,108 $ 55,896

Grand Total $310,608 $154,896 Grand Total $337,108 $188,396 2. Estimated Staff Cost. Since the Ad Archive will include new requirements, there will be some fiscal impacts on the FPPC’s Enforcement Division. The Ad Archive is being recommended to require a copy of the advertisement, identify the committee (including major donor and independent expenditure committees) paying for the ad, identify what on platform the ad will appear (including when and how long), and other detail including the intended audience information. This information would be solely in the possession of the committee and its vendors, with support from the platforms. The DTTF is recommending that all state-level candidates and ballot measure advertisements be included in the Ad Archive. Cases received through the Commission’s current FPPC AdWatch program vary in time taken to prosecute depending on how difficult it is to receive the pertinent records. Accordingly, estimating hours for cases that would verify the information in the Ad Archive or pursue leads of ads not posted to the Archive could vary greatly. If Enforcement staff is also directed to pursue a proactive program spot checking entries to the Ad Archive for accuracy and completeness, then staff time required would be greater. As proposed, Enforcement staff believes that for vigorous enforcement one to two positions would be recommended.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 30 | Page

B. MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE DIGITAL TRANSPARENCY TASK FORCE

(Approved May 29, 2020) CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Minutes of Digital Transparency Task Force Meeting

April 23, 2020 1:30 p.m.

Present: Chair Miadich, Commissioner Hayward, Brian Brokaw, Rena Davis, Gale Kaufman, Thad Kousser, James Schwab, Jennifer Waggoner, Abby Wood, and Katie Zoglin

Staff Present: David Bainbridge, General Counsel Jay Wierenga, Communications Director Sukhi Brar, Supervising Attorney Katelyn Greene, Commission Counsel Christopher Burton, Commission Counsel Paul Rasey, Special Investigator Larry Crabtree, Chief Information Officer Sasha Linker, Commission Assistant

Presenters: Russell Lehman, Commissioner, Washington Public Disclosure Commission Fred Jarrett, Commissioner Washington Public Disclosure Commission Sean Flynn, General Counsel, Washington Public Disclosure Commission Kim Bradford, Communications, Washington Public Disclosure Commission Brendan Fischer, Campaign Legal Center

A. Call to Order.

Chair Miadich called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 31 | Page

B. Public Comment for Items not on Agenda.

C. Introductions.

Chair Miadich discussed the need for the Digital Transparency Task Force, the layout of the current agenda, and introduced the Task Force members and key FPPC staff.

David Banbridge, General Counsel, gave an overview of the Bagley-Keene Act as the Task Force

is a Bagley-Keene body.

D. Introduction to Campaign Advertising in the Digital Realm.

E. Current Legal Landscape for Regulating Digital Political Ads.

Katie Zoglin, League of Women Voters, asked what code section talks about the disclosure to

influencers. Ms. Brar replied that she will email Ms. Zoglin with the code sections after the meeting.

Abby Wood, USC, addressed concern on whether FPPC or the Legislature would be enforcing

target criteria to be revealed or making the audience of the ad re-targetable in order to be able

to counter speak. Thad Kousser, UC San Diego, asked whether there is required disclosure on

content paid for by a committee that is not specifically an ad. Gale Kaufman, Kaufman

Campaigns, stated she does not agree with sharing target criteria to aid in counter speak as it takes away from campaign strategy.

James Schwab, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, stated the challenges of the expression of

opinion and misinformation regarding new digital political advertisements. The Secretary of

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 32 | Page

State actively searches for misinformation on social media and works to get those posts removed.

Russell Lehman, Commissioner, Washington PDC, gave background on the creation of the PDC and their desire to have a digital ad archive in the future. Sean Flynn, General Counsel,

Washington PDC, discussed ways the PDC has worked toward an ad archive and the thought process that the PDC has toward the archive they wish to create. Chair Miadich asked Mr. Flynn which information would be required to be disclosed for commercial advertisers. Mr. Flynn responded that demographics would be required to be disclosed, which include, age, gender, race, and location. This information is disclosed within 24 hours by the commercial advertiser.

Fred Jarett, Commissioner, Washington PDC, addressed the opportunity of using Facebook for political advertisements in the 2021 election cycle but stated that Facebook would need to follow Washington laws.

F. Enforcement Challenges Presented by Digital Political Advertising.

Jennifer Waggoner, League of Women Voters, asked how much variety has to be seen before it is considered a new type of ad that requires different disclosure. Mr. Burton responded that any variation is a new type of ad.

G. Digital Ad Archives

Brendan Fischer, Director at the Federal Reform Program, Campaign Legal Center, presented information on digital ad archives. Different platforms were discussed including social media

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 33 | Page platforms and other state and local jurisdiction platforms. Mr. Fischer discussed the difficulties of having States or social media platforms maintaining the archives.

H. Public Access to Archive Data

Tyler Joseph, Director of Policy, City of LA Ethics Commission, and Timothy Grant, IT Director,

City of LA Ethics Commission, gave a brief walkthrough of the ad archive the LA Ethics

Commission has created, showing how it works and the type of information stored. Thad

Kousser, UC San Diego, asked Mr. Grant for the usage statistics for a typical election cycle process.

I. Discussion of Presentations and Next Steps.

Chair Miadich proposed to adjourn the meeting due to time and to continue with discussion of next steps at the next meeting.

MOTION: Adjourn the meeting. Moved by Commissioner Hayward, seconded by Chair Miadich. Motion approved 9-0.

The meeting adjourned at 4:11 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Sasha Linker Commission Assistant Approved May 12, 2020

Richard C. Miadich, Chair Fair Political Practices Commission

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 34 | Page

(Approved December 8, 2020) CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Minutes of Digital Transparency Task Force Meeting

May 29, 2020 2:00 p.m.

Present: Chair Miadich, Commissioner Hayward, Brian Brokaw, Rena Davis, Thad Kousser, Amber Maltbie, James Schwab, Jennifer Waggoner, Abby Wood, and Katie Zoglin,

Staff Present: Sukhi Brar, Supervising Attorney Sasha Linker, Commission Assistant

1. Call to Order

Chair Miadich called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m.

2. Approval of April 2020 meeting minutes.

MOTION: Motion to approve April 2020 minutes. Moved by Chair Miadich, seconded by Commissioner Hayward. Motion approved 9-0.

3. Discussion of Digital Political Advertisement Archive

A. Should CA create and maintain a publicly accessible online archive that contains copies of, and information about, paid political advertisements run in CA State elections?

Chair Miadich stated that transparency and the intent of the Political Reform Act, database structure, and assisting with counter speak will be important for creating the database.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 35 | Page

Jennifer Waggoner, League of Women Voters, suggested potential speakers for the task force to speak on their experience with political advertisements and to also reach out to small independent campaigns.

The Digital Transparency Task Force Committee agreed that the online archive should contain copies and information about paid political advertisements run in CA State elections.

B. What types of “political advertisements” should be maintained in the archive? (E.g., direct buy campaign ads, independent expenditure ads, issue ads)

Katie Zoglin, League of Women Voters, suggested having a link between current internet platforms and the future state archive.

Thad Kousser, UC San Diego, interested in issue advertisements and would like more specifics.

Sukhi Brar, Supervising Attorney, defined issue ads as an advertisement that clearly represents a candidate or measure but does not contain expressed advocacy. Chair Miadich asked if there is room to add an additional requirement to have a copy of the issue ad to be sent to the local jurisdiction. Ms. Brar stated that she would do research if this requirement would be permissible under case law.

Chair Miadich stated that there was a consensus on campaign ads, independent expenditure ads, and potentially including issue ads if it would be legally permitted.

James Schwab, Secretary of State, stated that organic, non-paid advertisements are also affecting election activity. Abby Wood, USC, addressed there still is an exchange of money in many of the unpaid advertisements creating polished videos that could trigger jurisdiction.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 36 | Page

Chair Miadich stated that disclaimers or symbols could be used to determine who is paying for the advertisement.

C. What type of information about the advertisements should be maintained in the archive?

Rena Davis, Google, described that different iterations and variations of advertisements that could be created from AI. Mr. Kousser would like to hear about what typical variations and how many iterations are normally in an ad buy from people who create these advertisements.

Amber Maltbie, Nossaman LLP, would also like to look at the burden on small campaigns with low budgets.

Chair Miadich asked if there is a base template that could be disclosed. Ms. Davis stated that the platform would provide a basic template to put into the system for the AI to target the audience and give information back to the campaign. Copies of the different buckets of information are given from the campaign and are available in the transparency report.

Ms. Waggoner stated that it would be complicated to track each different variation of advertisements. Mr. Kousser mentioned that changes in font or color would be insignificant variations, but modifications for words should be addressed.

Chair Miadich asked what types of targeting information taskforce members think is important in terms of disclosure. Ms. Maltbie stated that targeting is more of a resource allocation issue.

Ms. Wood believes having audience information in order to reach the same audience is important.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 37 | Page

D. Who should be responsible for providing the information maintained in a publicly accessible archive of paid political advertisements?

Chair Miadich stated a campaign should be responsible for providing the information. Ms.

Zoglin addressed that online platforms should provide a link between the government and information already present.

Ms. Davis suggested the taskforce discuss at a future meeting how the existing tools provided by companies can be leveraged for government use.

E. What types of search capabilities should the archive have?

Chair Miadich stated that the Washington Public Disclosure Commission discussed different

private database experiences that allowed the ability to aggregate information and cross search

different elections.

Mr. Kousser suggested a combination of open API and having some resources to create a useful

website. Ms. Woods suggested there be communication within groups that would pull straight

from the API.

F. Other issues?

Chair Miadich asked if there are other issues that the taskforce members would be interested

to talk about next meeting.

Ms. Waggoner suggested the discussion on the future of apps, larger ad marketplace, and the

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 38 | Page center for civic design.

Mr. Schwab mentioned the understanding and discussion of deep fake advertisements and will ask his staff on information or a presenter to speak on this issue.

Mr. Kousser suggested a discussion on who would be against an ad archive.

MOTION: Adjourn the meeting. Moved by Commissioner Hayward, seconded by Chair Miadich. Motion approved 9-0.

The meeting adjourned at 3:52 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Sasha Linker Commission Assistant Approved May 12, 2020

Richard C. Miadich, Chair Fair Political Practices Commission

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 39 | Page

(Approved January 22, 2021) CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Minutes of Digital Transparency Task Force Meeting

December 8, 2020 12:00 p.m.

Present: Chair Miadich, Brian Brokaw, Rena Davis, Gale Kaufman, Thad Kousser, James Schwab, Jennifer Waggoner, Abby Wood, Amber Maltbie, and Katie Zoglin

Staff Present: Erika Boyd, Senior Commission Counsel Sasha Linker, Commission Assistant

4. Call to Order

Chair Miadich called the meeting to order at 12:03 p.m.

5. Public Comment for items not on the agenda.

6. Approval of May 2020 meeting minutes.

MOTION: Motion to approve May 2020 minutes. Moved by James Schwab, seconded by Thad Kousser. Motion approved 9-0.

7. Updated Timeline.

Chair Miadich discussed the proposed schedule for the Digital Transparency Task Force through

June. The next meeting would be set on January 22, 2021 to complete the information gathering on ad archives and will have digital media presentations. The proposal was to adopt this timeline going forward in 2021, with no objections.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 40 | Page

8. Presentation of Previous Legislation.

James Schwab, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, discussed SB 1104 (2014) to the task force. The bill would have covered all campaign communications, advertisements, mass mailings, and slate mailers supporting or opposing a candidate for elective state office or a statewide ballot measure that would be filed with the Secretary of State office.

Thad Kousser, UCSD, asked if the archive would address non-searchable pdfs that users will not be able to find. Mr. Schwab responded that they were working on digitizing state archives. Mr.

Kousser stated that he would want to work towards what the elements of the ads that the committee would like to be preserved and what would be useful for the public to know about them such as tags on images.

Abby Wood, USC, suggested the FPPC have a backup audit to ensure accurate data collection.

Chair Miadich agreed for the need to strengthen audit records requirements if they were to create a database to house both traditional, digital campaign ad images, and information about where they were sent to ensure to the public that the information submitted is accurate.

Jennifer Waggoner, League of Women Voters, asked if the database would be able to handle an automated posting by a big platform such as Facebook. Mr. Schwab responded that it is similar

to the functionality in the new Cal Access with API technology that automatically uploads from

vendors.

Mr. Kousser mentioned including misinformation ads in the archive. Chair Miadich stated that it

would be good to have this to check for patterns. Ms. Wood added that one of the fact

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 41 | Page

checkers can include a misinformation tag that users can search.

9. New York City Ad Archive.

Matthew Sollars, NYC Campaign Finance Board, presented the NYC Campaign Finance Board ad

archive. The presentation covered the independent expenditure disclosure and communication

archive and showed the search options to find campaign contributions and independent

spending for each year.

Ms. Waggoner asked if campaigns are required to provide a link to the ad itself in the archive.

Mr. Sollars responded that the link is required for all disclosure and that this link is to view the

advertisement. The paid for by notice also improved in 2016-2017 that would require a link to

an nyc.gov follow the money link on all paid for by notices.

Ms. Waggoner asked if Mr. Sollars received different feedback from small political groups and

how is it different from larger entities or major parties. Mr. Sollars stated that they was an

extensive rule making on how to balance the disclosure particularly for small advocacy groups

or community-based organizations and there was a concern about the intrusiveness or burden it would put on them. A lot of time was put into building the platform and portal to make it easier for all groups to have disclosure to get it done in an efficient way.

Chair Miadich asked what type of auditable record requirement existed that would double

check ad information filed were accurate for the benefit of the voters. Mr. Sollars responded

that they have a team to double check if they are getting disclosure for every communication

but would get back to the Chair on their specific audit requirements.

10. Presentation from Unearth Campaigns.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 42 | Page

Libby Hall, Unearth Campaigns, presented on the future of digital advertising, gaps, and opportunities. Ms. Hall stated what has worked well such as display ads and video ads and pointed out gaps in the current disclosure such as digital ads that needed more clarity in social media in vertical format, inconsistent platform enforcement, p2p texting, and influencer stories.

Mr. Kousser wanted to know more about paid bloggers and if a paid blogger reblogging campaign material would need to be disclosed. Ms. Hall stated that the reading of the current guideline around paid bloggers requires that a disclaimer appears on the material or would use the route of the sub vendor report if not totaling five thousand dollars in ad expenditures.

Chair Miadich asked what other types of disclosures would be both informative to the voters, but also balance that against what is practical or realistic. Ms. Hall stated that when an

Instagram influencer paid by a campaign posts on their story, their followers do not know if they have been paid to post information.

Ms. Wood asked if the opposing campaign is one of the main mechanisms for enforcement and if the use of information is used to either retarget or if something misinformative would result in more engagement in the campaign. Ms. Hall stated that Unearth Campaigns look at what messages opposing campaigns introduce and look at direct messaging only if that individual has been identified as critical for winning the campaign.

11. Follow Up Legal Questions.

Erika Boyd, Senior Commission Counsel, provided answers to previous legal questions on disclosures including paid posts made by social influencers/bloggers, disclosures included on

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 43 | Page

streaming apps, and the ability to require a copy of issues submitted in the database.

12. Adjourn.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. Moved by Amber Maltbie, seconded by Chair Miadich. Motion approved 9-0.

The meeting adjourned at 1:54 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Sasha Linker Commission Assistant Approved January 12, 2021

Richard C. Miadich, Chair Fair Political Practices Commission

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 44 | Page

(Approved February 19, 2021) CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Minutes of Digital Transparency Task Force Meeting

JANUARY 22, 2021 10:00 a.m.

Present: Chair Miadich, Brian Brokaw, Rena Davis, Amber Maltbie, Jennifer Waggoner, Abby Wood, and Katie Zoglin

Staff Present: Amanda Apostol, Regulations Coordinator

1. Call to Order

Chair Miadich called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.

2. Public Comment for items not on the agenda.

3. Approval of December 2020 meeting minutes.

MOTION: Motion to approve December 2020 minutes. Moved by Abby Wood, seconded by Chair Miadich. Motion approved 6-0.

4. Representatives from Google will present an overview of their political advertising

products and transparency report.

Alea Mitchell, Google, gave a demonstration on how Google’s self-service platform used by all sized advertisers works and the types of ads that are available for advertisers. Ms. Mitchell also gave an overview of how a digital ad gets placed on different websites based on the criteria of the ad and the Google Ad Policy Enforcement. Some of the different topic areas discussed were political content and election ad policies, targeting restrictions, verification process, and the

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 45 | Page

transparency report.

Abby Wood, Task Force Member, asked how ‘keywords against sites’ works and if they could be

misused. Ms. Mitchell responded with an example of using keywords in an ad and stated

misuse of keywords would be a violation of written terms and policies.

Katie Zoglin, Task Force Member, asked how political content is defined by region. Ms. Mitchell

stated that Google has definitions varied by country and then by state if there are different

requirements that need to be applied.

Jennifer Waggoner, Task Force Member, asked if Google has a complaints process for political

advertisers. Ms. Mitchell stated that the public can report ads they feel are inappropriate or

violate a policy and Google has a team that looks at complaints and responds to them quickly.

Ms. Wood asked why Google does not put merchandise related ads, especially when they’re

closely identified with a campaign, in the ad archive. Ms. Mitchell responded that Google has

made the decision that an election ad will not include ads for products and services or promote

political merchandise. This decision was made because it would be nearly impossible to capture

every ad that would feature the merchandise.

Chair Miadich asked if local races are included when defining political ads on Google. Ms.

Mitchell responded that political ads are only on the federal or state candidate level and ballot measures because there are many forms of local races and being able to support all of them is not possible at this time. Chair Miadich asked if the FPPC ID was an allowable identification for a political ad and if Google verifies the IDs given. Ms. Mitchell responded she believes state

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 46 | Page

regulatory IDs are allowed and Google does verify each ID but that the ID given to Google can

be any allowable identification. Chair Miadich also asked if they allow academic institutions or

press access to underlying raw data in the ad archive. Ms. Mitchell added that this would not be

allowed because it would violate privacy concerns by releasing the data from the advertiser

without their consent.

5. Presentation on Facebook Ads.

Sarah Schiff, Facebook, gave an overview of how the Facebook Ad system works and discussed

policy for ads regarding social issues, election policies, and authenticity, and transparency

requirements for ads. Ms. Schiff discussed how the Facebook Ad Library is set up and how to search for specific terms.

Ms. Zoglin asked which parameters or targeting criteria is allowed when a user purchases an ad.

Ms. Schiff stated that ads about social issues, elections, or politics have the same access to targeting features as other ads on Facebook, however there is a restriction on geography.

Someone is only eligible to run ads in the country they’ve been authorized through the

Facebook authorization process.

Ms. Wood raised concern on the tradeoff between regulation and transparency regarding

query problems that are preventing users from using the API to the full extent. Ms. Schiff said

that Facebook does provide transparency around the actual impact of an ad and who was

reached with that ad and added that Facebook is exploring ways to be more transparent with

different types of data, but, will not do it at the expense at compromising user’s privacy. Ms.

Wood suggested it would helpful to establish a minimum bin size for how this would affect

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 47 | Page voters and users.

Ms. Waggoner asked if Facebook discloses any social political election related content that would not be captured as an ad in the ad archive. Ms. Schiff said that the ad library does not include any non-ad formats at this time but can follow up if this could be included in the future.

Chair Miadich asked if a committee who advertises on Facebook is required to provide an FPPC

ID number. Ms. Schiff stated a tax ID, an FEC ID number, a street address, phone number, email, and website are all accepted forms of identification for Facebook ads. Chair Miadich asked if all the different permutations and derivations of an ad are included in the ad archive or is it just the initial ad. Ms. Schiff stated that every ad that delivers an impression is snapshotted, copied, and maintained in the Ad Library. There is also a dynamic creative where someone could submit three versions of an ad and indicate Facebook should use the where best suited and that would indicate on the ad itself that it might have different variations.

6. Identified Formatting Issues with DISCLOSE Act and Discussion on how to Rectify

Those Issues.

Trent Lange, President, California Clean Money Campaign, discussed clarifying who is paying for political ads under the California Disclose Act. The history of the California Disclose Act was explained. Mr. Lange suggested a solution to a perceived long committee name disclosure problem by requiring top contributors to be yellow and separated by a half line from the committee name for television ads. Proposals for AB 249 also suggested offering better solutions for online videos. Mr. Lange stated that the bill is currently under development with plans to pass through the Legislature in 2021 as a follow up to the other disclose act bills.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 48 | Page

7. Trends and Emerging Issues Regarding Digital Political Speech and Advertising From

the 2020 Election Cycle.

Chair Miadich moved the discussion on Trends and Emerging Issues Regarding Digital Political

Speech and Advertising From the 2020 Election Cycle to the February agenda due to the two-

hour time constraint.

MOTION: Adjourn the meeting. Moved by Rena Davis, seconded by Chair Miadich. Motion approved 6-0.

The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Sasha Linker Commission Assistant Approved February 9, 2021

Richard C. Miadich, Chair Fair Political Practices Commission

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 49 | Page

(Approved March 19, 2021) CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Minutes of Digital Transparency Task Force Meeting

February 19, 2021 10:00 a.m.

Present: Chair Miadich, Brian Brokaw, Rena Davis, Joshua Heller (for Gale Kaufman), Thad Kousser, Amber Maltbie, Jennifer Waggoner, Katie Zoglin, and Abby Wood

Staff Present: Erika Boyd, Senior Commission Counsel Jay Wierenga, Communications Director Sasha Linker, Commission Assistant

Call to Order

Chair Miadich called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m.

1. Public Comment for items not on the agenda.

Chair Miadich mentioned the receipt of a comment letter submitted by Brendan Fisher and

Austin Graham of the Campaign Legal Center.

2. Approval of January 2021 meeting minutes.

MOTION: Motion to approve January 2021 minutes. Moved by Chair Miadich, seconded by Amber Maltbie. Motion approved 7-0, Ms. Davis was not yet in attendance.

3. Digital Advertisement Alliance Political Ads Program.

Michael Signorelli, Partner of Privacy Practice at Venable LLP, and Ronald Jacobs, Chair of

Political Law Practice, Venable LLP, gave a presentation on Political Ad Icons. They gave an

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 50 | Page

overview of how consumers are provided with enhanced transparency through relevant digital

advertising, the consumers real time abilities to control their information, how the ad

disclosure works, and the flexibility of the icons.

Jennifer Waggoner, Task Force Member, asked about the research the presenters conducted to reach their conclusions presented. Mr. Signorelli stated that the testing was done more on commercial time and the delivery was based on the volume of icons they have worked on.

Ms. Waggoner asked if they were able to apply those requirements on audio or print forms of

advertisements as well. Mr. Signorelli stated that they currently have a group working on

allowing the same amount of transparency for those other forms of advertisement.

Thad Kousser, Task Force Member, asked about streaming platform solutions where there are

no options to click on the ads and what is the click-through rate for political versus regular ads.

Mr. Signorelli stated that their goal is to find a way that properly translates the policies for

those streaming services, and that there are specialists who are working on the solution. He

also stated that they do not have a definitive number for the click-through rate but there are 60

million click throughs to their choice pages that they’ve listed on the ads.

Abby Wood, Task Force Member, asked if the ads can be blocked by browsers, what is the

process or criteria for submitting the ads, and what actions will be taken for ads that were not

submitted to the DAA. Mr. Signorelli stated that they do actively enforce ads through a

technology that sweeps the internet for campaigns. They then request compliance from the

company, and if they fail to comply they get reported to the appropriate regulatory body. The

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 51 | Page

Better Business Bureau is one of the predominate enforcements that actively monitors

campaigns in the marketplace that sweeps the internet for campaigns for noncompliance. The

DAA is the regulatory body who issues the rules. If a browser had an ad blocking program,

neither the ad or the icon would appear.

Ms. Wood asked how often the Better Business Bureau reports on campaign’s lack of

transparency. Mr. Signorelli stated that their reports show how the marketplace has been

adjusting to the transparency requirements but have not addressed certain campaigns and how

to work through it. They provide transparency reports on the campaigns that detail whether

they are being transparent to regulators and thinktanks who are monitoring elections.

Chair Miadich stated that it was interesting that they chose not to track the click-through rates for the ads considering that they do have the capabilities. Mr. Signorelli stated that US

Congressmen and Federal Trade Commission did not want them to track the rates back in 2007 through 2015. They have issued a framework for the issue to open a conversation with regulators to drive some independent thinking to help stimulate further conversation. The programs are used as a supplement to help reinforce the ethics of the icon, and the approach will allow for better education regarding the icon.

Chair Miadich asked if anyone who was doing a political ad can use the icon. Mr. Signorelli stated that people come to the DAA to use the icon, to which businesses use it in their space.

Chair Miadich asked who is responsible to obtain the icon and applying it. Mr. Signorelli stated

that anyone can obtain the icon, but it is the political advertiser’s obligation to identify their ad

as political. Chair Miadich asked if the icon has been trademarked. Mr. Signorelli stated that

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 52 | Page the icons are intellectual property of the DAA and they can work out the arrangements for

California to utilize them. Mr. Jacobs states that while California may choose to use a bear, or any other symbol, for their icon, it may not be easily recognizable to signify a political ad. Chai

Miadich asked what the verification process is for the icon application process. Mr. Signorelli stated that there is no verification process, and the icon is simply for transparency and allows access to other links for more information. The BBB does their sweep to ensure that the proper ads are using the icon or is someone is misusing the icon.

Chair Miadich asked if they consider issue ads as political ads. Mr. Jacobs stated that they do not, and that have started small with any federal or state-wide candidate or any independent expenditure that expresses advocacy for a candidate are expected to comply.

Chair Miadich asked whether local and state legislative races, which are not state wide, are subject to this requirement. Mr. Jacobs stated that they are not, and they were focusing primary on those who could adopt the new regulations first before applying it to every race.

Mr. Signorelli stated that those races can use the icon, but they are not required to.

Chair Miadich asked how many jurisdictions are using or requiring this as an option. Mr. Jacobs stated that Maryland has, and they are in discussions with Washington, but they are hopeful that more states will be interested after the election period ends. Mr. Signorelli stated that they have made it available, so it is not limited to certain states. It is a first attempt at a standardized format for information, and they believe it can become an important part in considering a political campaign.

Katie Zoglin, Task Force Member, asked for further clarification on the icon image. Mr. Jacobs

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 53 | Page showed the icon which shows the words “Political Ad” and the icon.

4. Maryland State Board of Elections Presentation.

Jared DeMarinis, Director of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Division of Maryland Board of

Elections, stated that Maryland always tried to understand how to change the system while still maintaining disclosure. Mr. DeMarinis played a YouTube video from the Maryland State Board of Elections titled Transparency, Accountability, and Political Ads. He further described the video he played and discussed the positive impact of labeling political ads, and creation of databases for the ads for voters to make the best decisions with the transparency.

Amber Maltbie, Task Force Member, asked if the platform keeps digital copies of the ads. Mr.

DeMarinis stated that the platform does have to keep a copy of the ad and a lot of the demographics for it as well.

Ms. Wood asked if the opponent would only be able to see the amount spent for each ad. Mr.

DeMarinis stated that the opponent would only see the amount spent, but the platform would keep a record of the demographics the ad targeted should they get subpoenaed if there is a violation.

Chair Miadich asked what happens to the demographic information Mr. DeMarinis could request from the platform. Mr. DeMarinis stated that the information must be subpoenaed from the platform and it would become a part of his investigation, which may or may not become public records after the investigation has concluded. But he would not turn it over to the entity or competitors.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 54 | Page

Chair Miadich asked if there were any issues with the inconsistencies with the various databases. Mr. DeMarinis stated that the States are responsible for creating a blanket type of formality. These companies are currently self-regulated, but it is the responsibility of the lawmakers to ensure there is a base level of standards being met to ensure that voters are well informed of their options and decisions.

Chair Miadich asked what Mr. DeMarinis’ experiences have been with the icon and the information made available with the links. Mr. DeMarinis stated that he never took any information about the click-through rates, but just wanted to ensure campaigns were able to use smaller ads to ensure the banner displays properly.

Ms. Waggoner asked if Mr. DeMarinis had any thoughts or have seen any smaller groups that are unable to comply or struggling with compliance. Mr. DeMarinis stated that the rules begin to apply as soon as you begin to be a conduit for the message and maintain records.

5. Trends and Emerging Issues Regarding Digital Political Speech and Advertising from

the 2020 Election Cycle.

Jay Wierenga, Communication Director, and Erika Boyd, Senior Commission Counsel from the

Legal Division, provided a brief report on the issues raised and seen in the 2020 election cycle.

For Facebook pages, there was a lack of understanding at large, candidates continued to miss the requirement of disclosure on their banner and profile pictures. In-app advertising garnered the most attention and was covered by various news sites. Disclosure itself was not the issue, but how they were presented as the main ethical and legal issues. In response to the attention, the ad companies adjusted their ads to allow the public to opt-out. The other issues were with

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 55 | Page

influencers on social media, creating a lack of links between Committee pages and required

disclosure and social media posts.

Chair Miadich asked about the paid influencers and where the gap is for the required

disclaimers. Ms. Boyd stated that the Committee must have a disclaimer on their landing page or on their post but it is unclear if the individual would need disclosure on their landing page.

The issue being the committees can make their post on social media but the gap is disclosure of the committees paying the influencer to write something on their own page.

Ms. Zoglin asked about the magnitude of the issue for California. Mr. Wierenga stated that

there were potentially thousands who were targeted based on how they were marketed.

Chair Miadich asked if they needed to disclose the influencers they paid for on their campaign

reports and whether there should be data to search through. Ms. Boyd stated that they are

required to report that information but there is no quantitative data because some parties

disclosed the information with other various titles, i.e. influencer, web ad.

Ms. Maltbie asked if influencers could not state the disclaimer at the end of their video or post.

Ms. Boyd stated that the statutes are written in such a way that doesn’t cover all the platforms.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. Moved by Chair Miadich, seconded Thad Kousser. Motion approved 8-0.

The meeting adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Sasha Linker Commission Assistant

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 56 | Page

Approved March 9, 2021

Richard C. Miadich, Chair Fair Political Practices Commission

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 57 | Page

(Approved April 16, 2021) CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Minutes of Digital Transparency Task Force Meeting

March 19, 2021 10:00 a.m.

Present: Chair Miadich, Brian Brokaw, Rena Davis, Joshua Heller (for Gale Kaufman), Thad Kousser, Amber Maltbie, Jennifer Waggoner, Abby Wood, Katie Zoglin

Staff Present: Sasha Linker, Commission Assistant

Call to Order

Chair Miadich called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m.

1. Public Comment for items not on the agenda.

2. Approval of February 2021 meeting minutes.

MOTION: Motion to approve February 2021 minutes. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Chair Miadich. Motion approved 7-0, with Rena Davis not yet in attendance.

3. Center for Civic Design.

Whitney Quesenbery, Executive Director, Center for Civic Design, gave a presentation on how the Center for Civic Design works to give voters more accessible information. Ms. Quesenbery stated that the Center for Civic Design mostly looks at election materials but also at how people interact with those materials and the government. The Center for Civic Design had found that

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 58 | Page

voting is not a local interaction, as voters in Baltimore were influenced by decisions made in

California. A major issue the Center encountered was the civic literacy gaps in the public and

how people draw inferences or multifaceted information from print. The Center for Civic

Design learned that policy making is dominated by those who gather information from text and

that progressive disclosure should be utilized to prevent information overload or make them feel underprepared and disengaged.

Chair Miadich asked if there were any studies that Ms. Quesenbery has conducted specific to campaign ad disclaimers. Ms. Quesenbery stated that they have not because ads are not

something they have done, but they have done work on what kinds of information California

sends out, and the equivalent in other states, describing the mechanics of how to vote, the

ballot measures, and the candidates.

Chair Miadich asked how a campaign ad disclaimer study would look like mechanically. Ms.

Quesenbery stated that they would approach the public in various places for their participation

and offer monetary compensation. The Center for Civic Design would show examples and ask

for feedback after their interaction.

Chair Miadich asked about progressive disclosure and how the public can progress to further

information. Ms. Quesenbery described a study that allowed the public to click through to

further pages with more information should they desire. The Center for Civic Design observed

what each person looked at, how much time was spend on each section, and how much effort

each person was willing to engage.

Jennifer Waggoner, Task Force Member, asked Ms. Quesenbery to discuss how legislation is

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 59 | Page written to accommodate this work and her experiences with that. Ms. Quesenbery stated that the community review must include usability testing with the community. Their work is not quantitative, but they work to understand trends so they can improve the presentation of information in an effort to decrease public confusion.

Chair Miadich asked if The Center has looked into using symbology to convey information.

Ms. Quesenbery stated that they do use symbology and said there is danger with too many symbols but using them to highlight categories or differences is helpful.

Ms. Waggoner requested Ms. Quesenbery discuss the stop sign example. Ms. Quesenbery described a situation where The Center for Civic Design was working on the renewal by mail forms with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Some rights advocates suggested a large stop sign to signal that this section should not be read or filled out. They tested versions with a stop sign, a triangle with an exclamation point, and a finger point. To their surprise the stop sign worked and it is still on the DMV renewal paperwork.

Commissioner Wood asked about the intersection between voter knowledge and their willingness to seek additional information. Ms. Quesenbery stated that even a small bit of information can spur curiosity to seek more information about what they are otherwise unaware of.

Chair Miadich asked if there were any observations or advice for their digital ad archive design.

Ms. Quesenbery stated that it should be designed for browsing so the public can browse and find information with greater ease.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 60 | Page

MOTION: Adjourn the meeting. Moved by Chair Miadich, seconded by Joshua Heller. Motion approved 8-0.

The meeting adjourned at 10:44 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Sasha Linker Commission Assistant Approved April 6, 2021

Richard C. Miadich, Chair Fair Political Practices Commission

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 61 | Page

(Approved May 21, 2021) CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Minutes of Digital Transparency Task Force Meeting

APRIL 16, 2021 10:00 a.m.

Present: Chair Miadich, Brian Brokaw, Rena Davis, Dagny Starn (for Gale Kaufman), Thad Kousser, Amber Maltbie, Jennifer Waggoner, Abby Wood, Katie Zoglin

Staff Present: Sasha Linker, Commission Assistant

Call to Order

Chair Miadich called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m.

2. Public Comment for items not on the agenda.

3. Approval of March 2021 meeting minutes.

MOTION: Motion to approve March 2021 minutes. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Amber Maltbie. Motion approved 7-0, with Rena Davis not yet in attendance.

4. Discussion of Proposed Task Force Recommendations.

Out of an abundance of caution, Commissioner Wood disclosed that her husband owns

Facebook stock.

Katie Zoglin asked about a previous speaker being rescheduled. Chair Miadich stated that they were unable to move forward due to scheduling conflicts.

Chair Miadich discussed the first recommendation of creating a State-run digital archive and asked the Task Force to discuss any disagreement with that recommendation. With no discussion, the Task Force will recommend a State-run archive.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 62 | Page

Chair Miadich then discussed the type of information that should be contained in the archive, specifically, whether variations should be captured. Ms. Waggoner stated that she felt it was essential for the variations of an advertisement to be contained in the archive and the input given to a system is also very important. Ms. Waggoner discussed the potential of API linking the content between the archive and platforms or whether individuals would be uploading the ads. Thad Kousser stated that this is a key goal to capture the different ways people advertise stating that variations lead to very specific messaging and that should be transparent.

Amber Maltbie questioned if there was a practical compromise to create a distribution threshold, specifically mentioning the 200-distribution threshold used by the City of Los

Angeles.

Chair Miadich asked how the variations for ads are created, by the committee or by the platform. Brian Brokaw said, in his experience, it is through the committee.

Commissioner Wood asked about the minimum number of ads practitioners send out for testing. Chair Miadich asked if the concern was setting the threshold too high to inadvertently miss pertinent information. Mr. Kousser discussed factorial or conjoint experiments and described the variations that get tested.

Ms. Waggoner added that when AI is being utilized for ads the campaign’s ability to know what was shown and to whom is low due to technological abilities. Commissioner Wood stated that there might need to be disclosure of what was submitted to Google or the ad agency to capture as much information about the variation as possible. Chair Miadich stated that it tiptoes into proprietary strategic information and strategic proprietary considerations and questioned

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 63 | Page

whether the archive really needs the basic information from the Committee and then the

images and iterations placed by the platforms.

Ms. Maltbie asked if the recommendations are constrained by the Political Reform Act and

asked what the extent the Task Force are authorized under the act.

Chair Miadich asked how they can effectively capture the various iterations of an ad in an

effective way for disclosure. Chair Miadich asked Ms. Davis when the different iterations are

created, are they only in the control of the platform or if the committee also receives copies.

Ms. Maltbie asked if the archive would reach over into other types voter contact that are meant to test and refine messaging. Commissioner Wood stated that making the distinction between strategy and distribution is important to ensure we have analytically clear information about what the public is being exposed to.

Chair Miadich stated advertisements are defined in the Act as communications that are paid for or authorized by a committee and discussed how that definition could help narrow the variation questions.

Chair Miadich asked Ms. Davis how they could get all the variations of an ad that are being

generated by the platform into the archive. Rena Davis stated that is not possible and would be extremely difficult based on the way things are structured within Google. Ms. Davis did discuss the information disclosed in the transparency report which includes the information given by the campaign. Ms. Zoglin asked about how the content is produced if Google does not have

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 64 | Page

records of what content was produced. Ms. Davis stated that the presentation given by Google

in February 2021 is very informative on how the platform produces ads.

Chair Miadich stated, based on the discussion, the Task Force is interested in the archive

including a copy of the advertisement as seen by the end user.

Chair Miadich further stated that who paid for each ad and on what platforms an ad appears

are not controversial topic points for the Task Force. Ms. Waggoner stated that the expectation

that a committee knows what platform the ad is placed is not necessarily a complete answer

and that the answer should be about what platform the committee paid to place an ad.

Mr. Brokaw answered an earlier question that a committee will test up to seven to ten

variations of an individual ad before settling on a final, so archiving all the variations would be

cumbersome.

Chair Miadich stated that the information concerning the audience that the committee

intended to reach should include the length the ad ran and geographic region the ad intended

to reach and asked what other information the Task Force believes to be important.

Mr. Kousser asked what the current disclosure requirements were for radio and television.

Chair Miadich stated that it is the region, time, and station. Commissioner Wood stated that the

link is through the political file at the FCC, and is where the station is, the program it was

running during, and the viewer demographics of the show.

Ms. Zoglin suggested that one difference between digital advertising and traditional advertising

is that targeting is much more focused, which has positive and negative sides. She suggested

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 65 | Page

the Task Force could look at additional criteria given the unique qualities of digital advertising, such as the qualities or parameters that advertisers look for beyond geography. Chair Miadich asked whether Ms. Zoglin’s concern was targeting that could be unlawful, like hate speech. Ms.

Zoglin stated that micro targeting can serve as echo chambers for hate speech, and maybe they should start off broad to parallel other systems to begin with before finetuning through the years.

Ms. Maltbie stated that she was unsure the Political Reform Act allows for requiring disclosure to the detail the Task Force was discussing and would want to look further into it. Chair Miadich responded that the Task Force would be recommending legislation to set up, pay for, and define parameters for the archive.

Chair Miadich asked Mr. Brokaw how he effectively engages in counter speech. Mr. Brokaw stated it’s difficult and they have to do their best with guesswork since there is a lack of solid evidence.

Ms. Davis stated that targeting criteria on Google is limited to age, gender, and geographical location and it can’t be a radius around a certain location.

Mr. Kousser gave an example of saying, I advertised on Facebook, as being too broad and discussed needing to know the inputs that create the targeting in order to get the same demographic information that you would get from a radio or television ad placement.

Commissioner Wood talked about Washington State’s approach of asking for ‘receipts’ of ad

placements. Ms. Davis stated Google ads are not currently offered in Washington because of

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 66 | Page some difficulties with the regulations and the Google product model. Chair Miadich asked whether the targeting data that Washington is currently requiring an obligation that is placed on the committee or on the platform. Chair Miadich stated, at a minimum, the Task Force wants the audience information that is analogous to what is disclosed for television and radio and discussed the unique part of disclosing the input information to the platform.

Chair Miadich discussed the need to include impressions in the archive and asked how Google measures impressions that were generated from ads. Ms. Davis stated she isn’t sure how that is currently captured but would follow up with her colleagues to get the answer. Mr. Kousser believes it is more important to get the impression information rather than click through information to better align with radio and television structure. Ms. Davis asked if there were any measurement tools that are used in radio and television to gauge audience interaction or if it is something unique to social media. Commissioner Wood stated that there are no measurement tools.

Chair Miadich started the discussion on what types of advertisements should be included in the archive. He further stated state level candidates and ballot measures should be included but that local races would not be realistic immediately. Issue advertisements are not something that the Task Force would recommend including into the archive now, but the archive should be built in a way that they could house those in the future. Digital advertisements are the main concern, but the archive should be constructed to be able to allow for non-digital advertisements in the future. Ms. Maltbie declared support of including non-digital advertisements to help with efficiency and transparency in the future. Commissioner Wood was

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 67 | Page

surprised with not including local elections and feels local candidates and ballot initiatives

might be the most important to capture.

In respect to discussion point three, Chair Miadich stated that he believes the committee

should be responsible for providing the information to the State for inclusion in the archive. Ms.

Waggoner asked how influencers would be handled and if special language should be added.

Chair Miadich stated that it would be the committee’s obligation to obtain the ad from the

influencer for submission. Ms. Davis gave a note that Google includes options embedded for

influencers to disclose their paid services. Commissioner Wood discussed the use of

amplification and how the issue of bots should be included in the discussion.

Chair Miadich offered to have Commission Staff give an update on digital advertising rules and

the direction the Commission is currently moving.

Chair Miadich stated that the searchability functions of the archive should be easily accessible

and wants to include the “bite, snack, meal” idea discussed at the March 2021 meeting. Ms.

Zoglin asked about parallel disclosures such as the top three donors to committees and what

the Chair thought. Chair Miadich stated that they should have the committee name, FPPC ID number, and a link to the committees landing page where they have that information to avoid duplicating information.

Mr. Kousser stated that they should include all possible separate fields as searchable categories

to allow public transparency and have open API to allow any secondary user to download the

data to use it in any format they want or to create a relational database. Ms. Waggoner stated

that she would ask staff about the performance and affordability trade-offs.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 68 | Page

When asked about additional elements of the archive, Ms. Waggoner recommended three

elements: offering training and customer service; complaints, enforcements, and audits; and

the possible insignia for the State-run archive. She further described how the public will file complaints, what the staffing will look like, what the standards will be, and what burden is the

State taking on to ensure the archive is complete and accurate.

Ms. Zoglin asked how long they want to maintain the database and whether cost would impact the Commission’s decision.

Commissioner Wood asked if the data would interact with public records act requests and impact staff workload.

Chair Miadich suggested using an organization to examine disclaimers and recommending improvements to make them more useable and effective for end users. Ms. Davis stated that it might be useful to add some recommendations around the technical feasibility and how the archive might function.

The meeting adjourned at 11:49 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Sasha Linker Commission Assistant Approved May 11, 2021

Richard C. Miadich, Chair Fair Political Practices Commission

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 69 | Page

(Approved June 18, 2021) CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Minutes of Digital Transparency Task Force Meeting

May 21, 2021 10:00 a.m.

Present: Chair Miadich, Brian Brokaw, Rena Davis, Thad Kousser, Amber Maltbie, Jennifer Waggoner, Abby Wood, Katie Zoglin

Staff Present: Sasha Linker, Commission Assistant

Call to Order

Chair Miadich called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m.

1. Public Comment for items not on the agenda.

2. Approval of April 2021 meeting minutes.

MOTION: Motion to approve April 2021 minutes. Moved by Chair Miadich, seconded by Ms. Maltbie. Motion approved 6-0, with Rena Davis not yet in attendance.

3 Review and Discussion of Draft Task Force Report Containing Recommendations for Legislative and/or Regulatory Policies

In regard to recommendation one, Ms. Waggoner commented that there was no discussion of

budget or financial feasibility, and some concerns are with bandwidth, hosting, and staffing

costs. Chair Miadich stated that staff is currently looking into it. Chair Miadich stated that he

would like to see the addition of how the archive would be used and helpful in order to assist

enforcement as a purpose.

In discussing recommendation two, Mr. Kousser discussed the targeting information and asked

if it is the intent to limit this information or have that intended audience information be other targeting criteria selected and paid for by the committees. Chair Miadich stated the different

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 70 | Page

platforms would make it difficult to create a fixed, exhaustive list. Commissioner Wood stated they may look into how the platforms could respond in order to aid the advertisers.

Ms. Waggoner stated that terms like interaction or engagement could make a difference for the front end as well. Ms. Zoglin suggested other term amendments for various paragraphs.

Mr. Kousser discussed the cost efficiency of the digital retention of the ad database.

Ms. Davis discussed possibly transitioning the documents to PDF format after a certain time has passed to ensure retention. Ms. Zoglin agreed with Ms. Davis’ comments due to the expansion and maintenance of software that may no longer be in use after some time.

Mr. Brokaw discussed how technology continues to grow and evolve, as the database may become obsolete in a few years.

Chair Miadich suggested shifting the database to an educational institution should funding issues arise, in order to ensure the data will not be lost and could be used later on.

Commissioner Wood discussed content searching and term amendments to ensure wider search capabilities for the public.

Trent Lange, California Clean Money Campaign, stated that they sponsored AB 2188 that put in the requirements for the minimal four-year requirements for the companies because they know the challenges of what they were asking from the companies. Mr. Lange suggested they ask for and store the position held on the ballot measure or candidate. Mr. Lange stated that he did not see any link requirements about disclosure information and the top three funders and also suggested social media automatically transmit their ad databases.

Ms. Zoglin suggested amendments to the title to ensure usability. Mr. Kousser agreed with

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 71 | Page renaming the study to a recommended disclaimer.

Ms. Maltbie suggested adding an element about providing voters with information and making recommendations in a manner that takes into account the compliance required by those regulated committees. Chair Miadich agrees that there needs some more clarification in the recommendation.

Trent Lange, California Clean Money Campaign, suggested that they clarify the public comment input periods that should be in place for this kind of study in particular to encourage transparency. Mr. Lange stated that there should be a public hearing where the study’s methodology materials and questions they will be asking to different subject are publicly disclosed so outsides may provide further input.

Chair Miadich asked if the Center for Civic Design did any public hearings and public comments on the methodologies and materials they were using in commissioning the study for California.

Ms. Waggoner stated that they focused on best practices within community input and intentionally sought people out.

The meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Sasha Linker Commission Assistant Approved June 8, 2021

Richard C. Miadich, Chair Fair Political Practices Commission

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 72 | Page

(Approved July 16, 2021) CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Minutes of Digital Transparency Task Force Meeting

JUNE 18, 2021 10:00 a.m.

Present: Chair Miadich, Brian Brokaw, Rena Davis, Thad Kousser, Amber Maltbie, Jennifer Waggoner, Abby Wood, Katie Zoglin

Staff Present: Sasha Linker, Commission Assistant

Call to Order

Chair Miadich called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m.

1. Public Comment for items not on the agenda.

2. Approval of May 2021 meeting minutes.

MOTION: Motion to approve May 2021 minutes. Moved by Chair Miadich, seconded by Thad Kousser. Motion approved 7-0.

3. Review and Discussion of Draft Task Force Report Containing Recommendations for Legislative and/or Regulatory Policies

Chair Miadich stated he had minor edits to the report. The first edit, in the first paragraph of

the executive summary, “the average person” should be changed to “voters.” Chair Miadich

would like the last paragraph of Recommendation 1 to state, “Maryland was the first to

require…” rather than “create.” The final edit, in Recommendation 2, section 2b should be

updated to explicitly name the top three contributors as a requirement.

Thad Kousser suggested the inclusion of the Board of Equalization when listing who would need

to be included in the archive.

Katie Zoglin stated she agreed with Chair Miadich on including the top three contributors to the

archive and would like the questions listed in the executive summary answered or if the

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 73 | Page

questions are answered, then point to where they’re answered. Another edit would be to add

“so the public can understand who’s trying to influence them” when defining an archive in

Recommendation 1. Ms. Zoglin’s last suggestion was to include staff time in the fiscal analysis.

Jennifer Waggoner commented that there is discussion of working with a host or provider in

East Asia and wanted to know why, and that there was no content distribution network

discussion in the budget. Ms. Waggoner also commented some concerns about the potential

longtime budget or fiscal costs.

Jesse Hidalgo, Information Specialist, stated that FPPC staff felt the most comfortable working

with Microsoft, and they do not have specific numbers to illustrate their busy seasons cost

estimates effectively. Mr. Hidalgo also stated that they pulled cost based on what could be

done in-house and that staff felt the broad numbers worked based on the assumption the

system would be able to throttle during slow or busy times. He also stated in response to a

question from the Chair that they used Los Angeles’ program as a base for cost, but the

estimates are different based on the taskforce’s request for a much shorter time frame for

implementation than was followed in LA.

Rena Davis offered to present some potential cost ideas to her colleagues and stated staff could speak with her colleagues if that would be helpful. Ms. Davis also offered that the Department of Innovation might be able to offer technical assistance for the archive. Ms. Waggoner reiterated that her main concern was the traffic on the archive.

Trent Lange, California Clean Money Campaign, suggested adding the top three contributors

onto the archive, as well as having the social media platforms transmit their databases to the

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 74 | Page state archives rather than placing the obligation on the committees since most already maintain the information and could use API to transfer.

Ms. Davis stated the potential errors in mandating social media platforms to transmit their databases to the state archives, such as accountability and the potential liability through third party chains. This would make social media platforms pseudo-regulators.

Chair Miadich asked who would be responsible if the ads do not reach the archive.

Amber Maltbie stated the potential burdens between the platforms and committees in ensuring that the advertisements have been transmitted to the archive. Ms. Maltbie then discussed the current process of uploading advertisements in the City of Los Angeles Ethics

Commission website and stated it hasn’t been a burden but making sure everyone knows the requirement is important.

Chair Miadich asked about whether the platforms should have some duty to assist with potential technical difficulties that may occur.

Ms. Davis stated that there will always be some form of customer support to aid the committees if the content provided by the platform is the problem. Ms. Davis also discussed the importance of the archive itself having customer support.

Trent Lange, California Clean Money Campaign, further discussed that because platforms already have the responsibility to provide advertisers with disclosure information due to current law that it would be easier for the committees for those platforms to transmit their information to the archive automatically.

Chair Miadich stated that the main issue is who is responsible to transmit the information into

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 75 | Page the archive and not what information is going to the archive.

Ms. Davis stated concerns about self-reporting through a third party add another area where things can go awry and can add to fraud.

Trent Lange, California Clean Money Campaign, discussed the option of having the committees verify the information that was submitted by the platform in order to catch any fraud or misinformation since this is easier and less burdensome to committees.

The Chair asked that the issue be flagged for future legislation if there are problems with transmitting ads to the archive.

Ms. Davis stated that it would put more requirements and burden on the committees to keep additional records to double-check the information submitted by the platforms.

Ms. Waggoner stated her agreement that there will be potential complications and difficulties for the platforms if they are required to transmit the information. Ms. Davis acknowledge that some platforms might want to make this a business platform but likes keeping the option open as suggested in the recommendations.

Trent Lange, California Clean Money Campaign, discussed the recommendation that the disclosure research by the Legislature have a public hearing at the beginning of the process to aid in informing the scope of the research and what questions it should ask, a second public hearing to disclose and discuss the methodology which allows for the public or stakeholders to provide input, and a public hearing to discuss the data and draft report before it is finalized.

Chair Miadich supports the idea of greater transparency and believes the public hearings are appropriate in this instance. Commissioner Wood believes the public hearings would add to the

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 76 | Page legitimacy of the research conducted but it could be difficult to implement. She is for transparency but not in too rigid a form. Ms. Zoglin stated she supports transparency but is confused on how it would translate into the research being commissioned. Ms. Waggoner is concerned about the hearing on methodology since generally the consultants hired set the methodology and process and hopes the scope would help dictate the methodology. Mr.

Kousser agrees with transparency of the process but without tying the hands of those conducting the study.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. Moved by Chair Miadich, seconded by Brian Brokaw. The motion passed 7-0.

The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Sasha Linker Commission Assistant Approved July 6, 2021

Richard C. Miadich, Chair Fair Political Practices Commission

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 77 | Page

CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Minutes of Digital Transparency Task Force Meeting

JULY 15, 2021 10:00 a.m.

Present: Chair Miadich, Brian Brokaw, Thad Kousser, Amber Maltbie, Jennifer Waggoner, Abby Wood, Katie Zoglin

Staff Present: Sasha Linker, Commission Assistant

Call to Order

Chair Miadich called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m.

1. Public Comment for items not on the agenda.

2. Approval of June 2021 meeting minutes.

MOTION: Motion to approve June 2021 minutes with amendments as discussed. Moved by Chair Miadich, seconded by Amber Maltbie. Motion approved 6-0.

3. Adoption of Task Force Report Containing Recommendations for Legislative and/or Regulatory Policies.

Chair Miadich stated that there were two edits he would like to pull for discussion, other than those two, he is inclined to approve the recommended edits.

Ms. Zoglin stated that she would like to withdraw her Page 16 edit, and stated it was not about the language but about the formatting. Ms. Zoglin stated that she withdraws her comment for

Page 18-19 and believes community review is mentioned sufficiently after reading the proposal again.

Chair Miadich stated those were the two edits he wished to discuss and asked if any other

members had comments or questions.

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 78 | Page

MOTION: Motion to approve the report with the understanding that the attached edits would be incorporated. Moved by Chair Miadich, seconded by Mr. Brokaw. Motion approved 6-0.

MOTION: To adjourn the meeting. Moved by Chair Miadich, seconded by Brian Brokaw. The motion passed 6-0.

The meeting adjourned at 10:11 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Sasha Linker Commission Assistant Approved July 20, 2021

Richard C. Miadich, Chair Fair Political Practices Commission

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 79 | Page

B. WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY PUBLIC

ALEXANDRA STARR (APRIL 23, 2020)

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 80 | Page

DIGITAL COMMENTS FROM APRIL 23, 2020 MEETING

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 81 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 82 | Page

DANIEL NEWMAN AND ANN RAVEL, MAPLIGHT (MAY 29, 2020)

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 83 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 84 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations

85 | Page

BRENDAN FISCHER AND AUSTIN GRAHAM, CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER (MAY 29, 2020)

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 86 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 87 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 88 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 89 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 90 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations

91 | Page

IAN VANDEWALKER, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE (MAY 29, 2020)

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 92 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 93 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 94 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 95 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 96 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 97 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations

98 | Page

DIGITAL COMMENT FROM MAY 29, 2020 MEETING

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 99 | Page

CYNARA VELAZQUEZ, ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT (JANUARY 22, 2021)

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 100 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 101 | Page

BRENDAN FISCHER AND AUSTIN GRAHAM, CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER (FEBRUARY 19, 2021)

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 102 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 103 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 104 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 105 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 106 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 107 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 108 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 109 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 110 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 111 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 112 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations

113 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 114 | Page

BRENDAN FISCHER AND AUSTIN GRAHAM, CAMAPIGN LEGAL CENTER (MAY 21, 2021)

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 115 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 116 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 117 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 118 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 119 | Page

TRENT LANGE, CALIFORNIA CLEAN MONEY CAMPAIGN (JUNE 18, 2021)

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 120 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 121 | Page

Fair Political Practices Commission Digital Transparency Task Force – Report and Recommendations 122 | Page